Sample of how to break down satire, using the SNL Sarah Palin skit:

(NOTE: I find it’s often easier to answer questions 1 and 2 if you break them down side-by-side.)

1)What (or whom) is the target of the author/artist’s disdain? In the author/artist’s eyes, why does the target deserve to be criticized or mocked? / 2)According to the author/artist, what is the ideal against which the target is compared?
Sarah Palin (and, by extension, all politicians and our political system) is the target. Given the script of the SNL skit and the acting choices made by Tina Fey, a viewer can infer that the SNL cast and crew think that Palin (and other politicians) deserve to be criticized because:
  • They dodge honest questions, retreating instead into talking points and “bumper sticker” rhetoric.
  • They care more about getting elected than they do about helping people.
  • Palin, in particular, may be viewed by the cast as under-informed and inarticulate.
/ In an ideal world, Sarah Palin and other politicians would:
  • Honestly answer questions about the issues that matter to our society.
  • Care more about helping our country than they do about getting elected.
  • Present themselves intelligently, giving evidence that they are both articulate and well-informed on the issues that matter.

3)How does the piece of satire attempt to punish/cure the target?

Presumably, by making Sarah Palin and object of mockery she is not going to be taken seriously… and therefore not get elected.

4)How does the piece of satire encourage the audience to feel amusement and/or contempt for the target? (Style question… see below for more detail on this aspect.)

There are many ways in which this particular skit encourages the audience to feel amusement at Sarah Palin’s expense. The skit originally aired in close proximity to the actual interview, trading on the public’s awareness of current events. Tina Fey wore a jacket and glasses similar to Palin’s, with her hair in a Palin-esqueupdo. This immediately identifies her with the person and incident she’s portraying. Fey speaks with a Midwestern accent to mock Palin’s “plain speaking” style.

In the original interview, Palin paused once and failed to answer the question, sidestepping it to bring up election talking points such as “job creation” without explaining how jobs would be created if she got elected. Fey pauses multiple times and waves her hands distractedly in the air to overplay and exaggerate Palin’s original fluster. Fey’s response to the question is even more evasive than Palin’s original response, borrowing some of Palin’s original rhetoric so that the two speeches will be closely aligned. Fey adds in “a dollar menu at restaurants” to indicate the ridiculousness of the politicians’ so-called solutions. Fey also ends midsentence after gabbling about “job creation under the umbrella of job creation” to characterize Palin’s political rhetoric (perhaps all election rhetoric) as both empty and unclear.